Leo is the new king of Ireland.

Good loser

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

What are you talking about?

Even if everyone had of paid their capped charges , they wouldn't have surpassed 250m per annum.


Nothing about Irish Water was a good idea, it was all wrong, it was planned wrong and implemented wrongly.

That's the year 1 money. The cost of the provision to domestic consumers is over €1 bn per annum. All that should have been collected from the users.

Wanderer78

Good loser wrote:

That's the year 1 money. The cost of the provision to domestic consumers is over €1 bn per annum. All that should have been collected from the users.

Or maybe we could collect more by 'taxing' things such as capital more?

Kermit.de.frog

I think Ireland is out of "recovery" to be honest. The country is growing strongly and is stable.

If you look at the Italy crisis in recent weeks, money flowed in to Irish sovereign debt and core Europe while fleeing the rest of the Euro periphery which is the surest sign the country has moved beyond recovery.

Wanderer78

Kermit.de.frog wrote:

I think Ireland is out of "recovery" to be honest. The country is growing strongly and is stable.

I'd both agree and disagree, Ireland a few years ago was a terrifying place, I feared where we were going, it was truly terrifying to see the rapid pace of the recession, but I believe we re becoming complacent, we re pathing ourselves on the back too early. we re showing signs of severe de-stress in certain parts of our society, and we re not truly reacting to this. sadly I cannot see this changing anytime soon, and I suspect it doesn't really matter who's in power, we re kinna stuck, like most western nations

McMurphy

Good loser wrote: »

That's the year 1 money. The cost of the provision to domestic consumers is over €1 bn per annum. All that should have been collected from the users.

I think I read somewhere that the cost of delivering water (period) cost in excess of 1bn per year.

If you have a source that clarifies that domestic users demand a billion for their water needs alone (before commercial/agri/etc) I'd appreciate a link.

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

Even if that was true, which it isn't, that doesn't take away from the fact that those office overheads are still being paid by the Irish taxpayer and the 600m Good Loser stated or the 250m which Johnny Dogs stated, could be used for other things like housing or health.

Irish Water did not contest the figures that showed had everyone paid water charges that there would have been anything left over to go towards water services after their own overheads were deducted.
You are disputing this so perhaps you would care to provide some figures to back up your claim ?


I have no idea where Good Loser got that figure of 600m from.

If every household had paid it would have come to 250m as Johnny Dogs stated.
250m that would not have gone to housing, health or anything else as it was the cost of just keeping the quango alive with nothing actually going towards the cost of water services.
Irish Water was, and still is, a very costly mistake for the Irish taxpayer. O watern meters alone, buried never to be used, we will be repaying 45m a year for the next 12 years (Irish Water`s own figure btw) on money borrowed to purchase them.

charlie14

Good loser wrote: »

That's the year 1 money. The cost of the provision to domestic consumers is over €1 bn per annum. All that should have been collected from the users.

That 250m was not year 1 cost of keeping Irish Water alive. It was the year on year cost which had they been allowed to bury the rest of the water meters they intended would have risen by an extra 45m year on year.


Irish Water attempted to raise 250m a year from domestic households.

Year 1 they raised 144.2m.

To even raise that required the state to prove bribe money of 94.5m.

So how do you believe this 1bn. figure was going to be achieved ?

It doesn’t matter what it cost to provide water. Fact remains that it’s money taken from the coffers that could be better spent on healthcare and housing. Take a bow, those who refuse to pay their way.

Charles Babbage

Yesterday,in the Times of London, and not just the Irish edition, Matthew Parris wrote a column
"Abortion triumphalism is deeply troubling - I’d have voted for change but the lack of respect shown to those arguing for different moral choices is a growing trend"

This makes the point that Varadkar could have handled the referendum result like a statesman but did not.
It is notable that Parris, as a homosexual pro-abortion British person, noticed this.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/past-six-days/2018-06-02/comment/abortion-triumphalism-is-deeply-troubling-bmv9xxsdd

Today,” said Leo Varadkar when the result of the Irish referendum on abortion was announced, “[we now] have a modern constitution for a modern people. And we’re saying as a nation that we trust women and that we believe that women should be respected . . . The burden of shame is gone.”

Ireland, concluded the Taoiseach, was now “more tolerant, open and respectful”.

Such remarks lacked, in themselves, tolerance and respect. His side had won. They were always going to win. He could have stood respectfully back. He could have afforded in victory not to push away and, yes, stigmatise hundreds of thousands whose beliefs were as deeply held as his own. I’m afraid it’s a growing trend.

charlie14

Deleted User wrote: »

It doesn’t matter what it cost to provide water. Fact remains that it’s money taken from the coffers that could be better spent on healthcare and housing. Take a bow, those who refuse to pay their way.

What really matters is that Irish Water was a very costly, poorly established mess where close to 1 Billion euro was wasted that could and should have been used elsewhere.
A costly mistake that the Irish taxpayer will still be paying for on the repayment of borrowed money for at least the next 12 years for water meters alone.


So take a bow all those that supported this waste.

Especially all those that were so worried about what water services were costing the taxpayer, yet had no problem accepting the taxpayer funded bribe that was the Water Conservation Grant that had nothing whatsoever to do with water conservation.

McMurphy

Deleted User wrote: »

It doesn’t matter what it cost to provide water. Fact remains that it’s money taken from the coffers that could be better spent on healthcare and housing. Take a bow, those who refuse to pay their way.

Firstly, you're some girl to complain about money coming from state coffers being put to better use, didn't you come on here boasting about using the conservation grant to tax the motor lol?

Secondly, It might have escaped your attention, and if it did - I'm a bit surprised as it was a pretty big deal at the time, but an "Expert Commison" was established by FG to determine the best way forward as regards water, and how it should be paid.

That "EC" concluded that the best way forward was to fund it from general taxation.

Now, I don't know about you, but what I would take from that was that the people who refused to part with their hard earned cash, to go towards what many of them considered a con job quango where, in hindsight, right to do so.

It was an expensive pet project and no mistake.

Left FF evoting machines looking like small beer in comparison.

Good loser

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Firstly, you're some girl to complain about money coming from state coffers being put to better use, didn't you come on here boasting about using the conservation grant to tax the motor lol?

Secondly, It might have escaped your attention, and if it did - I'm a bit surprised as it was a pretty big deal at the time, but an "Expert Commison" was established by FG to determine the best way forward as regards water, and how it should be paid.

That "EC" determined that the best way forward was to fund it from general taxation.

Now, I don't know about you, but what I would take from that was that the people who refused to part with their hard earned cash, to go towards what many of them considered a con job quango where, in hindsight, right to do so.

It was an expensive pet project and no mistake.

Left FF evoting machines looking like small beer in comparison.

The whole Irish Water project was ensnared in politics from beginning to end. Starting with PBP and their fellow travellers, which then snagged SF, and later FF came on board with their absurd and specious 'reasons' and 'policies'. Because of the lack of a majority FG capitulated.

I do not imagine many FF or SF deputies seriously believed in the nonsense they spouted on the issue. Of course towards the end PBP etc reckoned it was an entree for them into a new socialist utopia. Big mistake there.
One does not need a PhD to realize that not charging consumers for the water they use is economically illiterate in every respect - no other (adult) country would dream of engaging in this carry-on.
Now the Govt presumably needs all the money it can get its hands on for housing. Simple maths means it has so much less because it has to completely fund domestic consumers water supplies.
Commonsense and logic surely should rule in these situations.

McMurphy

Good loser wrote: »

The whole Irish Water project was ensnared in politics from beginning to end. Starting with PBP and their fellow travellers, which then snagged SF, and later FF came on board with their absurd and specious 'reasons' and 'policies'. Because of the lack of a majority FG capitulated.

I do not imagine many FF or SF deputies seriously believed in the nonsense they spouted on the issue. Of course towards the end PBP etc reckoned it was an entree for them into a new socialist utopia. Big mistake there.
One does not need a PhD to realize that not charging consumers for the water they use is economically illiterate in every respect - no other (adult) country would dream of engaging in this carry-on.
Now the Govt presumably needs all the money it can get its hands on for housing. Simple maths means it has so much less because it has to completely fund domestic consumers water supplies.
Commonsense and logic surely should rule in these situations.

Take it up with FGs 'EC'.

It was they who reached the decision ref funding , not your imaginary bogey men on de left.

Good loser

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Take it up with FGs 'EC'.

It was they who reached the decision ref funding , not your imaginary bogey men on de left.

They were restricted to no-pay choices - their options were not open ended.


It was FF killed the charges - not the Left.

McMurphy

Good loser wrote: »

They were restricted to no-pay choices - their options were not open ended.


It was FF killed the charges - not the Left.

I missed that.


Source?

charlie14

Good loser wrote: »

They were restricted to no-pay choices - their options were not open ended.


It was FF killed the charges - not the Left.

Other than the who shenanigans in setting it up, two things killed the farce.


The first was the life being scared out of the Labour and FG back-benchers when seeing their own supporters protesting in the marches which resulted in the capped charges and the idiotic bribe.



The second was that even with a bribe costing 94.5m. they could still only collect 144.2m. of the 271m. Irish Water were hoping to collect.


The game was well and truly up at that point for a quango that needed 250m. just to cover its office overheads and nothing else

Wheeliebin30

charlie14 wrote: »

Other than the who shenanigans in setting it up, two things killed the farce.


The first was the life being scared out of the Labour and FG back-benchers when seeing their own supporters protesting in the marches which resulted in the capped charges and the idiotic bribe.



The second was that even with a bribe costing 94.5m. they could still only collect 144.2m. of the 271m. Irish Water were hoping to collect.


The game was well and truly up at that point for a quango that needed 250m. just to cover its office overheads and nothing else

What was the reason fg set up Irish water do you think?

charlie14

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

What was the reason fg set up Irish water do you think?

Who knows.

Some political ideology perhaps that neither made political or economic sense.
Especially when we had been assured by Enda Kenny that there would be no charges until we had a world class service.


FG were not alone in setting it up though.
Labour were also complicit for no other reason than to get their bums on cabinet seats.

blanch152

Good loser wrote: »

The whole Irish Water project was ensnared in politics from beginning to end. Starting with PBP and their fellow travellers, which then snagged SF, and later FF came on board with their absurd and specious 'reasons' and 'policies'. Because of the lack of a majority FG capitulated.

I do not imagine many FF or SF deputies seriously believed in the nonsense they spouted on the issue. Of course towards the end PBP etc reckoned it was an entree for them into a new socialist utopia. Big mistake there.
One does not need a PhD to realize that not charging consumers for the water they use is economically illiterate in every respect - no other (adult) country would dream of engaging in this carry-on.
Now the Govt presumably needs all the money it can get its hands on for housing. Simple maths means it has so much less because it has to completely fund domestic consumers water supplies.
Commonsense and logic surely should rule in these situations.

Exactly.

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

What was the reason fg set up Irish water do you think?

A single water authority was recommended because of the complete mess that the local authorities had made of water supplies for over a century. Irish Water hasn't gone away, it is still one company, and while it will take another election cycle, or maybe two, water charges will be back too.

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

Exactly.




A single water authority was recommended because of the complete mess that the local authorities had made of water supplies for over a century. Irish Water hasn't gone away, it is still one company, and while it will take another election cycle, or maybe two, water charges will be back too.

Irish Water and the FG/Labour cock up have had one result.
Ensuring no party will even consider water charge for at least a lifetime.
At which stage all those lovely expensive meters will be obsolete.
Anyone that believes otherwise is fooling themselves.


Any sign of those figures from you to back up your claim that mine were incorrect ?

blanch152

charlie14 wrote: »

Irish Water and the FG/Labour cock up have had one result.
Ensuring no party will even consider water charge for at least a lifetime.
At which stage all those lovely expensive meters will be obsolete.
Anyone that believes otherwise is fooling themselves.


Any sign of those figures from you to back up your claim that mine were incorrect ?

Given there was no official source produced for yours, I don't need to debunk them.

Wheeliebin30

charlie14 wrote: »

Who knows.

Some political ideology perhaps that neither made political or economic sense.
Especially when we had been assured by Enda Kenny that there would be no charges until we had a world class service.


FG were not alone in setting it up though.
Labour were also complicit for no other reason than to get their bums on cabinet seats.

Knowing how politically toxic it was I still can’t understand the reason for them setting it up.

My point is people slate them and think they were trying to con the public.

But what would they have to gain my doing it?

I never got an answer to this.

Could it be possible they were trying to do it for the good of the country or is that some mad thinking?

Good loser

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Knowing how politically toxic it was I still can’t understand the reason for them setting it up.

My point is people slate them and think they were trying to con the public.

But what would they have to gain my doing it?

I never got an answer to this.

Could it be possible they were trying to do it for the good of the country or is that some mad thinking?

That and commonsense.


The conspiracists do not understand these concepts.

Colonel Claptrap

charlie14 wrote: »

Anyone that believes otherwise is fooling themselves.


Any sign of those figures from you to back up your claim that mine were incorrect ?

Any sign of those reports you cited that almost 50% of FG TDs were undeclared in the referendum?

Were you spoofing us? Confused? Or just making stuff up as you went along?

Anyone who believes your subsequent posts are fooling themselves.

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

Given there was no official source produced for yours, I don't need to debunk them.

That seems to be a bit of a recurring theme around here.

The same happened on the water charges thread.


When figures as to the annual cost of Irish Water`s office overheads were posted, figures that were accepted by Irish Water, a particular poster would claim they were, in his words also, debunked.
When asked to provide figures showing this "debunk" he/she would then run away and hide for some time only to reappear with the same old rubbish.

At first it was tiresome but after a time it just became such a ridiculous head in the sand attitude it was comical.

charlie14

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

Any sign of those reports you cited that almost 50% of FG TDs were undeclared in the referendum?

Were you spoofing us? Confused? Or just making stuff up as you went along?

Anyone who believes your subsequent posts are fooling themselves.

If you are having trouble with any of my figures relating to My posts on Irish Water then as I have said to another poster here please free to post yours



As to your question.

Irish Times Abortion Referendum Tracker January 2018 when FG TD`s were contacted first by email and later by text.


16 in favour.
3 opposed.
31 refused to state their intention

McMurphy

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

What was the reason fg set up Irish water do you think?

Whatever the reasons, the optics weren't good - from the start.

Like, you have a tax domicile billionaire, where FG ministers had form with inappropriate relationships with him, firstly getting a tax payer funded discounted company, questionable circumstances surrounding the deal to say the least (under the counter payments and what not) an enquiry surrounding it, still on going afaik.

Coincidentally, same tax domicile billionaire just acquired a fairly lucrative state contract with his newly acquired formerly bankrupt company - some lads have all the luck, wha?

Then there were cases of ministers "looking after their own" as regards staff within Irish Water etc.

Yes - water charges for wastage is a good idea in principle, but unfortunately for FG they couldn't have made a bigger haimes of introducing them, had they of tried.

Let's see any other government, left or right of the political spectrum, try to introduce them again for at least a generation.

That is the sad state of affairs they have left behind them, and they need to take ownership of it. They might like to blame others for the mess (financially and environmental) left in their wake, but ultimately, it was their blatant incompetence.

Just yesterday evening we had a FG diehard try and claim that the govt appointed "EC" was basically given a predetermined task when deciding what way water services were to be funded (they claimed a non charging system was the only option open to them).

It's always someone else's fault.

Wheeliebin30

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Whatever the reasons, the optics weren't good - from the start.

Like, you have a tax domicile billionaire, where FG ministers had form with inappropriate relationships with him, firstly getting a tax payer funded discounted company, questionable circumstances surrounding the deal to say the least (under the counter payments and what not) an enquiry surrounding it, still on going afaik.

Coincidentally, same tax domicile billionaire just acquired a fairly lucrative state contract with his newly acquired formerly bankrupt company - some lads have all the luck, wha?

Then there were cases of ministers "looking after their own" as regards staff within Irish Water etc.

Yes - water charges for wastage is a good idea in principle, but unfortunately for FG they couldn't have made a bigger haimes of introducing them, had they of tried.

Let's see any other government, left or right of the political spectrum, try to introduce them again for at least a generation.

That is the sad state of affairs they have left behind them, and they need to take ownership of it. They might like to blame others for the mess (financially and environmental) left in their wake, but ultimately, it was their blatant incompetence.

Just yesterday evening we had a FG diehard try and claim that the govt appointed "EC" was basically given a predetermined task when deciding what way water services were to be funded (they claimed a non charging system was the only option open to them).

It's always someone else's fault.

Which cases were ministers looking after their own?

McMurphy

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Which cases were ministers looking after their own?

Can't believe you're serious here.

But alas, in case you missed it......

Irish Water director hired as personal driver by Minister

The appointment of Hilary Quinlan, then a Fine Gael councillor in Waterford, to the board of Irish Water in November 2013 was approved by Phil Hogan, then minister for the environment, and Pat Rabbitte, then minister for communications. Mr Quinlan is paid a €15,000 annual fee for the position

Mr Quinlan said he doesn’t see any conflict between driving for Mr Coffey and his position with Irish Water. “I was appointed [to Irish Water] because I was president of the county and city councillors association. But that’s not to say there aren’t Fine Gael positions and Labour positions.”

Mr Quinlan added: “You tell me one party out there who doesn’t look after their own. I don’t see anything wrong with it. It’s politics.” He asked why there isn’t more of a focus on the economy. “We were all nearly eating out of bins three years ago.”

charlie14

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Knowing how politically toxic it was I still can’t understand the reason for them setting it up.

My point is people slate them and think they were trying to con the public.

But what would they have to gain my doing it?

I never got an answer to this.

Could it be possible they were trying to do it for the good of the country or is that some mad thinking?

Arrogance would be my guess in that having such a large majority they felt they could simply ram it down peoples throats without consequence.


Remember Hogan`s trickle, the EU daily fines that have never materialised etc.
Not just arrogance but lies as well.
There is also the fact that some old friends did quite well financially out of it that is now the subject of an inquiry under Mr. Justice Brian Cregan estimated to cost the taxpayer another 100M. euro.



What ever it was it sure did not end up for the good of the taxpayer who will be still paying for the ill-conceived fiasco for years to come.